Chapter 4 The Debacle Of Rizal’s Death

Chapter Four: THE DEBACLE OF RIZAL’S DEATH

On the early morning of 29 December 1896, Rizal was formally notified of the court’s verdict: death. He was to be shot at sunrise of the next day. The news of the decision spread like wildfire. Tension gripped Manila as the Spaniards feared that the rebels would enter the city and liberate Rizal. Fishing for evidence. While Rizal was held incommunicado in Fort Santiago, the Spanish authorities fished for evidence against him. Many Filipino patriots such as Deodato Arellano, Dr. Pio Valenzuela, Moises Salvador, Jose Dizon, Domingo Franco, and Timeteo Paez were brutally tortured to implicate Rizal. Rizal’s own brother Paciano was arrested and cruelly tortured. He endured all pains inflicted by the torturers, rather than sign a statement incriminating his younger brother. His body was shattered on the torture rack and his left hand was crushed by the screw but his spirit was unbroken. An anteroom and an adjacent bedroom comprised his cell. Because he was held incommunicado, his relations with the wardens assigned to him were rigorously controlled. He knew nothing of what was happening outside and thus could not plan his course of action. He could only take refuge in his Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis which he always had with him. Unlike his prison mates, he was neatly and smartly dressed, with immaculate shirt, collar and tie. During the five-day investigation, he was informed of the charges against him, he answered the questions asked by the Judge Advocate, but he was not permitted to confront those who testified against him. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION On 20 November, Rizal appeared before Colonel Francisco Olive. Governor Blanco had named Colonel Olive judge advocate in charge of the general proceedings against the insurrection, the same Olive who under orders of Governor Weyler, had led the troops in evicting the Calambeños some years back. This man was always showing up in Rizal’s way. He had taken the declarations of numerous detainees, in an attempt to find out the names of supposed organizers and accomplices and especially the possible relations between Rizal and the Katipunan. The farcical preliminary investigation began. Rizal was made to classify persons as “friendly”, “not suspicious”, or “hostile” from a list of names shown him. Then he was subjected to a continuous two-day inquisitorial interrogation and he answered the questions without benefit of counsel. He was not even allowed to confront those who testified against him. In two short days, Rizal had to make a rapid identification from the “line-up” of some 27 characters whose faces he did not see and whose voices he could not hear but whose words would be utilized to convict him. Documentary and testimonial evidence presented against Rizal. The documentary evidence consisted of fifteen exhibits: 1. A letter of Antonio Luna to Mariano Ponce dated Madrid, 16 October 1888 showing Rizal’s connection with the Filipino reform campaign in Spain. 2. A letter of Rizal to his family dated Madrid, 20 August 1890, stating that the deportations would encourage the people to hate tyranny.

93

3. A letter from Marcelo H. Del Pilar to Deodato Arellano dated Madrid, 7 January 1889, Implicating Rizal in the Propaganda campaign in Spain. 4. A poem entitled Kundiman, allegedly written by Rizal in Manila on 12 September 1891. 5. A letter of Carlos Olive to an unidentified person, dated Barcelona, 18 September 1891, Describing Rizal as the man to free the Philippines from Spanish oppression. 6. A masonic document dated Manila, February 1892 honoring Rizal for his patriotic services. 7. A letter signed Dimasalang (Rizal’s pseudonym) to Tenluz (Juan Zulueta’s pseudonym), dated Hongkong, 24 May 1892, stating that he was preparing a safe refuge for Filipinos who may be persecuted by the Spanish authorities. 8. A letter of Dimasalang to an unidentified committee dated Hongkong, June 1892, Soliciting the aid of the committee in the “patriotic work”. 9. An anonymous and undated letter to the editor of the Hongkong Telegraph, censuring the banishment of Rizal to Dapitan. 10. A letter of Lldefonso Laurel to Rizal, dated Manila, 8 September 1892, saying that the Filipino people look up to Rizal as their savior. 11. A letter of Rizal Segundo, dated Manila, 14 September 1893, informing an unidentified Correspondent of the arrest and banishment of Doroteo Cortes and Ambrocio Salvador. 12. A letter of Marcelo H. Del Pilar to Don Juan A. Tenluz (Juan Zulueta), dated Madrid, June 1893 recommending the establishment of a special organization, independent of Masonry, to help the cause of the Filipino people. 13. Transcript of a speech of Pingkian (Emilio Jacinto), in a reunion of the Katipunan on 13 July 1893, in which the following cry was uttered “Long live the Philippines! Long live Liberty! Long live Doctor Rizal! Unity!” 14. Transcript of a speech of Tik-tik (Jose Turiano Santiago) in the same Katipunan reunion, Wherein the katipuneros shouted: “Long live the eminent Doctor Rizal! death to the oppressor nation!” 15. A poem by Laong Laan (Rizal), entitled A Talisay, in which the author makes the Dapitan Schoolboys sing that they know how to fight for their rights. The documentary “proofs” gathered by Olive consisted principally of letters found during the searches made in the houses of suspected organizers of the Katipunan. Most of the 94

documents did not constitute proof against Rizal at all, since he never talked of separatism nor of insurrection. Also produced were such insignificant letters as those referring to the polemic he had with Lete, the Borneo colony or the merienda in Rizal’s honor in Madrid. There were some Masonic letters mentioning the matter of liberty in the abstract, of oppression, as well as some protests against deportation without trial. Also among the papers were the lyrics of a kundiman allegedly written by Rizal, but which were actually by Pedro Paterno. In these lyrics reference is made to despots, chains and liberty, never mentioning the name of Spain, although the reference was quite clear. Found among the documents too were fragments of speeches made in the meetings of the Katipunan when Rizal was in Dapitan, which ended in cheers for him, and of which he was completely ignorant. There were the testimonies of detainees taken from September to November 1896. Two of these were those of Aguedo Del Rosario and Francisco Quizon who indicated that Rizal was honorary president of the Katipunan and that his picture presided over the session hall. This does not actually signify Rizal’s knowledge or approval of the Katipunan, since Rizal was already in Dapitan when the Katipunan began its operations. Neither can he be held responsible for the fact that, according to the declaration of Martin Constantino, the aim of the Katipunan was to kill the Spaniards, proclaim independence and designate Rizal as Supremo. Salvador Dizon, Domingo Franco, Deodato Arellano, Ambrocio Salvador and Timoteo Paez all referred to the organization of La Liga Filipina upon Rizal’s arrival from Hongkong. Almost all of them attributed secessionist tendencies to La Liga, but in the statutes or by laws of La Liga, there is not a single line that speaks of or reflects aspiration for secession from Spain. Rafael Palma says, “It is mystery how all the witnesses could have made incriminating declarations against Rizal.” The testimonial evidence also included the oral testimonies of Jose Reyes, Moises Salvador, Jose Dizon, Pedro Serrano Laktaw, Dr. Pio Valenzuela, and Antonio Salazar. These declarations gave Olive a legal ground for demanding the return of Rizal to the Philippines even when the testimonies were of relative value, it not being known under what circumstances they were taken. Not only were they inconsistent but also contradictory to what is known with proofs about Rizal’s life and character. The Epistolario Rizalino conveys the real thinking of Rizal: his private letters to his friends and collaborators expressed his real and true thoughts and concepts. In addition to the declarations, there were documents mainly letters from those involved in the rebellion, previous to and after the founding of the Katipunan. Another factor unfavourable to Rizal was the atmosphere then prevailing in Manila, especially among the wealthy Spaniards including the friars who risked losing their material possessions, acquired though many years and accumulated through generations. The Interrigation. For five days Olive interrogated Rizal regarding all the points he was implicated in based on documents and testimonies. Rizal admitted that Valenzuela had seen him in Dapitan, together with a patient with an eye ailment, but that he had not known him before nor did he hear of him after the visit. When Olive asked whether Valenzuela had gone to Dapitan on a mission, Rizal replied that the former had told him of an uprising, and that they were worried as to what would happen to Rizal in Dapitan. He added that he had expressed his opinion that it was not the opportune time, for they lacked education, arms and ships; that the case of Cuba should be taken as a lesson; that for Spain’s own good she would give concessions and that, therefore, they should wait for these. Rizal, although opposed to the uprising, accepting the idea for some opportune time in the future. Since the condition set by Rizal for liberation was the education of the people, it was possible that he would die of old age before it could be realized. Yet, in 1960 the General Assembly of the United Nations, approved a resolution to the effect that the lack of preparation in 95

the fields of education, politics, economics and social science should not be advanced as justification for delaying the independence of nations. Olive asked Rizal if he knew the detainees who had given testimonies implicating him in the rebellion. He said he did not know most of them. He admitted, however, having met Salvador in Madrid, as well as Deodato Arellano, brother-in-law of Marcelo H. Del Pilar, but added that Arellano’s testimony was doubtful owing to the differences between him and del Pilar. Arellano had alluded to Rizal’s moves to organize La Liga and mentioned the meeting at the Ongjungco house. Regarding Pedro Serrano, Rizal admitted having known him in Madrid but he had learned that Serrano was against him, for which reason he considered his testimony unreliable. When asked whether he ahd organized an association La Liga Filipina in Madrid, Rizal replied affirmatively, but said that the ends of said association were to promote discipline among the members. Asked whether there was a relationship between La Liga and La Solidaridad, he replied that the two were independent of each other, and that when Del Pilar worked for the union of these two, he, Rizal had left for Paris. He added that the La Liga did not have any political leanings and that politics was the concern of La Solidaridad, which was not under his direction. When asked if he had written the by-laws of La Liga, he answered in the affirmative, specifying that it ends were to promote unity among the Filipinos, commerce and the cooperative system in business, but without any political orientation. He also confirmed having gone to Tarlac during the last days of June 1892, accompanied by Pedro Serrano, to visit the northern provinces and to see the recently inaugurated railway to the north. Olive gave special attention to the famous meeting in the house of Ongjungco. Rizal admitted having attended the meeting, for there were some Filipinos who wished to know him. The topics discussed in the meeting were La Liga and Masonry. The judge advocate inquired whether it was true that he had spoken during the meeting, encouraging the Filipinos to be a worthy and free nation, for otherwise they would always be at the mercy of the abuses of the authorities. The judge also asked him whether he had made reference to the excesses due to the discretionary powers of the governors. Rizal replied that this was possible, for he had spoken of this several times. But he did not think he had spoken of the effect of the unexpected spread of Masonry in the Islands as cause for alarm. Rizal also declared that he did not know Bonifacio, head of the Katipunan, although it was true he attended the meeting at the Ongjungco house. As to his picture, he said that it was possible to get copies of his picture without his knowledge and consent. At this point Olive asked Rizal if he knew that there was a plan to rescue him from Dapitan, to which Rizal replied that he had heard rumors but that he had never been directly informed of the plan. He added, he would not have accepted the offer. Lastly, Olive inquired whether, in the supposed escape he had planned to go to Japan to join Del Pilar and Doroteo Cortes, to which Rizal replied that he had no knowledge of such preparations and that the proponents of the escape plan did not know of the animosity between him and Cortes. When the interrogation was finished, Colonel Olive sent a transcript of the proceedings to Governor Blanco, together with the letters and documents. Blanco submitted all the papers to Captain Rafael Dominguez, who had been designated special judge for the Rizal case. THE CHARGE On 3 December, Dominguez initiated action on the case. It took him two days to draw his conclusions: “The accused is the principal organizer, the moving spirit of the Philippine 96

insurrection, founder of societies, of newspapers, and has written books designed to foment and propagate the ideas of rebellion and sedition among the people, as well as the principal leader of the anti-government movement in the country.” Without losing any time, Blanco decreed that the case be passed on to Don Nicolas de la Peña who was the auditor general. Blanco was not aware that seven days before, from Hongkong, the Dominicans had sent a cable to the general prosecutor in Madrid lamenting the indolence of the Governor General and urging immediate action on his transfer. While the above negotiations were going on, Don Camilo de Polavieja arrived in the Philippines on 3 December 1896. This general had risen from the rank of soldier to second corporal, to Captain General. Strict, authoritarian, with other features similar to Weyler, Polavieja was the person whom the friars had in mind as their instrument in the fight to replace Blanco as soon as they had succeeded in his transfer. Although it was not customary for a second corporal to be promoted to Governor General, except as an Interim designation, this development was enough for Rizal’s fate to take a fatal turn. Once the indictment was pronounced, the auditor issued on 7 December instructions to the effect that the papers be elevated to plenary, specifying that the defense must be undertaken by an officer of the army and not by a civil lawyer. With this other development, Rizal’s chances for a fair trial were further reduced, for in the hands of an officer who did not know the law, the chances for the use of rights favourable to the accused were reduced. Further, the accused was to be detained in prison and the bail set at P1,000,000. Blanco subscribed to the proposal of Peña to assign the case to the lieutenant auditor, since this was a case of rebellion and illegal association, the latter a prerequisite to the former. It is to be underscored that La Liga was not separatist or revolutionary in nature, and that it died a few days after it was founded when Rizal was deported to Dapitan. Between the dissolution of the La Liga and the Cry of balintawak , there was a gap of four years. It was impossible for Rizal to have maintained a connection with the insurrectos from the distant island in the South where he was incommunicado and was very closely guarded. Selection of defense counsel. Rizal was given a long list of officials from which to select his councel. He did not know anybody but noted a familiar name, that of Taviel de Andrade. At first he thought that it was his custodian in Calamba. It turned out to be the brother, Don Luis, lieutenant of the artillery. Since he knew no other person in the list, he opted for Don Luis Taviel. It had been decided that Rizal’s case was to be submitted to a Council of War. In the meantime, Rizal learned that his name was being used as battle cry by the insurrectos despite the fact that he was held incommunicado. He wrote to the judge informing him of this fact, and requesting permission to manifest his views on the matter, considering that many were being misled by it, and were committing many disturbances of which he did not approve. Rizal added that he was taking this step to save those who were being misled and expressed the hope that this action of his would not affect in any way the case against him. On 13 December Camilo Garcia de Polavieja assumed his post as Governor and Captain General of the Philippines. The program of the friars had been carried out. The Spanish community was assuaged. As compensation, Blanco was named Chief of His Majesty’s Casa Militar . In the same manner that Martinez Campos in Cuba was relieved in favour of Weyler, Blanco was replaced by Polavieja. These two cases are parallel in many respects. The conservative Canovas was in power. It appears that the Marquis of Pidal intervened in the appointment of Polavieja, Archbishop Nozaleda of Manila, being quite close to him. According to

97

Fernandez Almagro, Queen Maria Cristina did not have to be pressured in order to be on the side of the Dominicans. The Manifesto. On 15 December Rizal presented to the judge the following manifesto the publication of which necessitated the approval of the auditor. My Countrymen: Upon my return from Spain, I learned that my name has been used as battle-cry among some who have risen in arms. The news came as a painful surprise to me; but believing that all this was over, I kept my silence in the face of something irremediable. Now I have heard rumor that the said disturbances are still going on; and if there are some whoo keep on using my name, whether in good or bad faith, I hasten to address these lines to them, in order to remedy this abuse and to inform those who have been misted, so that the truth may be known. Since the beginning when I was notified of what was being projected, I was opposed to the plan, I fought against it and demonstrated its absolute impossibility. There are witnesses to my words. I was convincexdx that the idea was highly absurd and fatal. Furthermore, when the rebellion broke out in spite of my advice, I offered spontaneously not only my services but also my life and my name for them to use in the manner they deemed best, to suppress the rebellion; for convinced of the harm that could be done, I was glad to sacrifice anything to impede such useless disaster. My countrymen: I have given proof of wanting liberties for our country, and I still want them. But I have placed as the premise for these, the education of the people, so that, through education and work they will have the proper personality and be worthy of the same. In my writings I have always recommended study and the civic virtues, without which there can be redemption. I have also written that in order for reforms to be fruitful, they have to come from above, for those that come from below are irregular and unsure. Fully convinced of these ideas, I cannot but condemn this absurd and savage uprising, plotted behind my back, which dishonors the Filipinos and discredits those who can advocate for us. I reject all types of participation, deploring with pain in my heart the rash ones who have permitted themselve to be misted. Return to your homes and may God pardon those who acted in bad faith. Jose Rizal Fort Santiago, 15 December 1896 The manifesto was not disseminated because the auditor was opposed to its publication, arguing that Rizal only repudiated the isurrectionalmove because of its being premature and destined to fail, but between the lines one could see his hope that independence could be reached through more honorable means, when the education of the people guaranteed its success. De la Peña summarized Rizal’s manifesto in the following words: “In the face of defeat, lay down your arms. Later I shall lead you to victory” Majority of the biographers have an unfavorable judgement of the Manifesto. Those who are partial to Rizal like Rafael Palma mention it very lightly in passing, as though treading on embers. But the document is important because it presents Rizal’s posture during his trial If the manifesto had been published, it would have caused confusion among the insurgents, especially thos who did not understand Rizal’s ideology and were moved only by the general idea of independence, which for them could be won only throufh armed struggle against Spain. Rizal should have foreseen this and also considered that it was too much to expect that 98

an insurrection which had reached that stage, dominating several provinces and having had several military victories, could, at his bidding, be aborted, especially since its leaders had not needed his advice as transmitted by Valenzuela. It took all of one year by 14 December 1890 for the forces of Aguinaldo to lay down their arms, because of the Pact of Biak-na-bato, an agreement binding both parties to fulfill its terms. Also, Rizal’s manifesto reveals a certain tone if resentment because the uprising had proceeded despite his advice against it and “behind my back”. He thought that his prestige was enough to make the rebels lay down their arms. Had the manifesto been published, he might have suffered the embarrassment of its being unheeded, which would have been traumatic for him. Furthermore, the leaders of the Revolution would not have left the manifesto unanswered and Rizal would, for the first time, have been attacked harshly, for the rebels would have rejected the adjectives”criminal proceedings,” as he described the uprising, and “rash” as he described those who joined the insurrection. What is incomprehensible is the fact that the Spanish authorities did not allow the publication of the manifesto when it did not speak of independence either for the present or for the future. The most serious words were “liberties” and “reforms”. Thus it was communication which could have been subscribed to by Archbishop Nozaleda himself. Upon submitting the paper to the judge, Rizal clearly specified that he did not wish that the Manifesto should affect the case against him. On 19 December, Polavieja decreed that Rizal’s case be forwarded to the lieutenant auditor, Don Enrique de Alcocer, who should forward it to the prosecutor, Capt. Rafael Dominguez, who would then send it to the Council of War. On 20 December, Rizal wroe a letter to Lieutenant Taviel reflecting his anxiety since his counsel was a man of good faith but totally ignorant of the law: “Frankly speaking, having you as my counsel, I feel that I do not wish nor do I need consultation with others. I have more confidence in the nobility of the defender than in his practical skill. I believe you have nobility, enough for my asmall case. Besides, you are more informed of certain matters than any other lawyer, with them I have not spoken… whether to admit consultation or not, asx you deem best, I am satisfied with my choice.” This letter was to be handed to Taviel by one of Rizal’s sisters, but it did not get to the addressee due to Paciano’s objection. He feared that the letter would hurt the defender’s feelings. The Council of War. Data and information about the Concil of War are kept in the General Military Archives in Segovia. Thus the main sources are the journalists of the time and Retana’s biograph of Rizal. Retana had lived in the Philippines. From 20 December, Rizal and his counsel started to prepare his defense, studying it point by point. On 25 December, although a feast day, Rizal was informed that on the next day at 10:00 in the morning, the Council of War would convene. Upon receiving the communication, Rizal wrote to Taviel asking for a conference prior to appearing before the Council. He was questioned on several items, among them, his participation in various political activities, his association with certain people and his knowledge of certain circumastances. The investigators had to fish for evidence from Rizal’s correspondence, written six to eight years prior to the organization of La Liga Filipina which was alleged to be the cause of the revolution, from his poems to Talisay and Kundiman, and from speeches of Katipuneros that ended with: “Long live the Philippines! Long Live Liberty! Long Live Dr. Rizal!”visit to Dapitan, on Rizal’s appointment as honorary president of the Katipunan, on the display of his picture at the secret session room of the Katipuneros and on the testimonies of apprehended Katipuneros. 99

The evidences dug up yielded nothing but flimsy deductions which could not definitely prove that Rizal favored a rebellion and plotted it. Desperate for more proofs of Rizal’s guilt, Captain Olive had Paciano tortured to unconciousness. Even under torture, Paciano denied his brother’s guilt and kept quiet most of the time, silently enduring blow after blow,one kind of torture after another. He matched his younger brother’s courage in facing death and in defying Spanish tyranny. When the authorities were through with him, Paciano, almost dead, had to be carried home to stretcher. He remained paralyzed and speechless for several days. THE TRIAL Inconclusive as the evidences were, Judge Rafael Dominguez recommended a speedy trial, which the Governor and Judge Advocate General Nicolas de la Peña approved. The latter suggested a trial by the military court and ordered the investigating officer to begin the corresponding confiscation proceedings to the amount of at least a million pesos. On 26 December, in the Hall of Flags at the Cuartel de España, a soldier’s dormitory was converted into an improvised courtroom. Behind a long table sat the president Lieutenant Colonel of the Cavalry Don Jose Tagores Arjona, accompanied by six captains of different arms. In front of the table was Rizal, more pallid than usual, but at ease despite being handcuffed. Beside him was Lieutenant Taviel near him the fiscal. The hall was filled mostly with officials and officers in the servixce. The resx were manly peninsulares and some natives. On a bench meant for the public but conpicuously located sat Josephine. Rizal was in black suit, white shirt, vest and tie, his hair carefully combed. He was the picture of serenity. The correspondents of Heraldo de Madrid and El Imparcial were present. The trial proceeded with the reading of the accusations by Fiscal Don Enrique de Alcocer, who began by acknowledging and maintaining the provisional conclusions followed by an oratorical exposition.

100

n this cell ovember to

Doña Teodora embracing the cranium of her son, Dr. Jose Rizal

101

and in Cuba. Then he traced the Spanish education of Rizal and his activities abroad. He cited stove or burner where Rizal hid his last poem “Mi Ultimo Adios” Rizal’s literary works; Alcohol from his prize-winning poems to the two novels and other publication’s which 102

allegedly showed his separatist tendency. Alcocer attempted to show that Rizal’s writings were designed to incite anti-friar and anti-Spanish feelings, that he planned to work through the Masonic lodges so that the friars might be expelled. He pointed to Rizal as the principal figure of the insurrectional movement, adding that Rizal’s only dream was to obtain the independence of the Philippines employing all means towards that goal. The fiscal cited as evidence the ode A La Juventud Filipina written in 1879 when Rizal was 18 years old. He then referred to Nolin Me Tangere in which, according to him, Rizal had heaped insults on the Spaniards. He emphasized the immense damage done by the novel. He noted that El Filibusterismo praised the memory of the three priests who died by the garrote after the Cavite Mutiny. The account also cited the arrival of Rizal in Manila in 1892 bearing numerous leaflets and proclamations of separatist content in his baggage. Finally, the fiscal said that Rizal broke his word when he organized La Liga. The fiscal likewise took up the significance of Masonry in the Philippines, confusing the practices of Masonry with those of the Katipunan. In his description of La Liga there were many inaccuracies in dates, names and aims. Among these was the statement that the aim of the organization was independence, which was definitely not in the statutes of the Liga. Mixing up the declarations of the witnesses, he stated that the aim of the Liga was to proclaim independence in the country and to name Rizal supreme chief. Hence, the hanging of his picture in the session hall. Referring to the organizational meeting of the Liga which lasted only for a night, Rizal asked the court; Can anyone believe that I could have organized this whole rebellion in a single night, in a single meeting where the discussion centered on commerce and similar topics? If the few who were present at the meeting had taken me seriously, they would not have let the Liga die. Explaining the passages of bitter criticism in his letters, Rizal asked the court to consider that these were Witten when his family had been stripped of their two residential houses and their warehouses, as well as their lands and other properties, and when his brother and all his brotherin-law deported. Concerning the rebellion, Rizal reiterated his counsel’s arguments that he had “nothing whatsoever to do with political affairs from 6 July 1892 to 1 June of the present year.” If he knew of and favored the rebellion, he could have easily escaped from Dapitan because he owned a number of vessels and was allowed even week-long trips by his guards. Instead he had started a small hospital, purchased land, and sent for his family to live there with him. Since his docility at Dapitan was questioned, Rizal explained that the prosecution alleged. To the testimony of one of the witnesses that Rizal sent letters to the revolutionists though his family, he called the attention of the judges to the fact that not a single letter had been presented in the court as evidence. To further convince the court of his innocence about the rebellion, he argued that had he known about the date and time for the outbreak of the revolution he could have taken the necessary precautions to avoid possible arrest. He could have jumped ship at any of the ports of call on his way to Cuba but did not because, as he said, “my conscience was clear.” Rizal reiterated Taviel’s defense logic that Valenzuela’s visit to Dapitan should be an argument in his favor because he advised against revolution and dissuaded Valenzuela from pushing it through, He called attention to the absurdity of the accusation that he was the leader of the rebels by asking; “What kind of a chief is he whose followers say ‘yes’ when he says ‘no?”

103

The fiscal referred to Rizal’s exile in Dapitan, “in view of the ‘suspicious’ which his conduct had aroused. “With his statement, he tacitly admitted that the verdict was not based on proof, as in the case of the decree promulgated by the Council of Ministers deporting Rizal to Alhucemas. He stressed the importance of the many and regular conferences Rizal allegedly had with several persons involved in the insurrection but he did not give any names except that of Valenzuela. The fiscal cited Rizal’s reply that “It is not the opportune time to organize adventures,” turning the phrase against the accused by qualifying it as very grave, since with it Rizal meant that the insurrection was premature as yet. In reality, Rizal’s opinion as transmitted by Valenzuela, was a lone voice in the dessert. At this point the fiscal accused Rizal of not having the courage to defend his actions and of having kept away from the knowledge of the authorities the fact that an insurrection was being conceived when it was the obligation of every honest man and Spaniard to report the plot. On the contrary, the fiscal said, Rizal continued with his subversive propaganda. For, which reason, he said, Rizal was guilty of the Crime or rebellion and should suffer the punishment out by the code. Final accusations. Illegal association and rebellion were the final accusations of the fiscal, who indicated that for the first crime, the penalty was imprisonment in its minimum and medium grades; and for rebellion the penalty was life imprisonment. Since the law stipulated that if in order to commit one crime it was necessary to commit another, the maximum penalty should be applied: death. The fiscal cited as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the accused was a native. This constituted additional proof of the discrimination against the natives.” Concluding his rhetorical masterpiece, Alcocer exposed Rizal as the “soul of the rebellion,” considered by his countrymen as a superior being whose commands had to be observed without question. Ultimately, Alcocer asked for the death penalty. In case of pardon and unless all other penalties were remitted with it, he asked that the prisoner be absolutely and permanently deprived of civil rights and subject to police surveillance for life. He shoul also be compelled to pay an indemnity of P20,000. Because of strict censorship, the newspapers of Manila could not publish ay report of the defense. THE DEFENSE The first lieutenant of the artillery, Luis Taviel de Andrade, began the defese of Rizal by emphasizing that notwithstanding the good intensions of the tribunal, it could not avoid being prejudiced by the prevalent opinion. For the defense, Taviel appealed to the impartially of the judges who should not be carried away by the strong current of prejudices caused by the insurrection. He argued that the incidents presented by the prosecutor happened several years before the rebellion broke out in 1896 and that had Rizal been accused before 26 August of that year, no court would convict him on the same evidences. Referring to Rizal’s work, Taviel argued that the prosecutor’s impression on Rizal’s writing was a misconception and that in them, Rizal had only asked for the recognition of and respect for the rights of the people. A person, Taviel argued, could not condemned for voicing the sentiments of his people. Neither could he be condemned for organizing the Liga because its aim was to unite the people for the promotion of commerce, industry, agriculture, and the arts. Anyway, he said the Liga was short-lived because Rizal was deported to Dapitan before it could be effectively organized. He asked; “Has Rizal performed any act, public and solemn, that is separatist in concept? Did he on any occasion declare aloud in the face of our beloved country that he abominates her domination?” AS a factor contributing to these prejudices, he pointed out that the presence of the 104

boat Castilla for a month caused speculation that Rizal was a participant in the insurrection, although later it was made known that he had been authorized to go to Cuba as a military doctor. The majority thought that it was a trick to enable him to disembark and put himself at the head of the uprising. The defense confessed with candor that he himself participated in the preventing that from occurring. Taviel bolstered the defense by citing the technicality of the law that Rizal’s guilt had not been proved by the confession of the accused, by reliable witnesses, by expert testimony, by official documents, by visual proof or vent, or even by definite and conclusive indications. Taviel cited a law, an annex to the penal code, which include Rule No. 52, regarding the application of penalties when the delinquency is proven beyond doubt by conclusive proofs. The defense affirmed that the accusations did not have probative value since they were not in conformity with the rule. Then he analyzed, one by one, the charges, demonstrating that no one of them conformed with the provisions of the rule. Taviel proceeded to explain that the witnesses presented by the prosecution were biased against Rizal for they were actually co-accused in the same case, having been apprehended when the Katipunan was discovered. They naturally had to save themselves by presenting Rizal as the only instigator and promoter of the revolution. Referring to the Liga, he stressed that the coaccused, upon testifying that Rizal was their head and the moving spirit of the rebellion, automatically became instruments or collaborators of the prosecution and were thus saved from death. For this reason, he said, their testimony should be carefully evaluated. As to the Liga, he admitted that the defendant had written by-laws, but that the did not so at the instance of Basa. Taviel argued that the statutes of the organization which Rizal wrote did not show any evidence of illegality. He also called the court’s attention to the fact that Rizal had not written anything or discussed with anyone any subject connected with politics since 1892. Valenzuela’s visit to Dapitan should have been taken as an argument in Rizal’s actually told Valenzuela that he approved of the upirsing. Taviel concluded that Rizal’s guilt had not been proved legally; therefore, that accused should be acquitted and all his rights should be restored in the name of justice. He called the court’s attention to the fact that the Liga died shortly after it was organized because of his exile to Dapitan and that it was revived without his knowledge. To prove that the Liga did not serve the revolutionist’ purposes, Rizal showed that they disregarded it and organized the Katipuna. In other words, if the Liga aimed at a revolution, the revolutionist would not have abolished the said society in favor of the Katipunan. Taviel requested the court to reject the images engendered by wars, for they could only provoke ideas of vengeance, and judges should not be vengefuk but just. For a youthful lieutenant of the artillery who was not a lawyer by profession and had no experience whatsoever in trial procedures, the defense counsel did very well. He was able to find rule No. 52 and many other arguments in favor of the defendant. He hardly made any error in dates, and other data. This was due to military discipline and because many of the points broguth up in the trial by the prosecutor could not be admitted for lack of supporting evidence Taviel’s position was difficult, considering the climate prevalent in and out of the sala. This is confirmed by the fact that his pleading was coldly received in the courtroom.

RIZAL’S “ADDITIONS TO MY DEFENSE

105

The chairman of the Council asked Rizal if he had anything to say. Rizal had his own arguments, a refutation of the connections and activities imputed to him. He was allowed to read “Additions to my Defense:” First: Regarding the rebellion – from July 6, 1892, I have been concerned absolutely in politics until July 1, present of the year, when, notified by Pio Valenzuela that an uprising was planned, I advised the contrary, attempting to convince him with reason. Pio Valenzuela left me seemingly convinced; so much so that instead of taking part thereafter in the rebellion, he placed himself at the mercy of the authorities Second. The proof that I did not maintain any political relation with anyone, and that someone who said that I sent letters through members of my family is in error, is that they need to send Pio Valenzuela, under an assumed name, with considerable expenses, whereas in the same boat were five member of my family and two servants. If what the claim were true, what need had Pio Valenzuela evade the attention of anyone and to incur great expense? Desides, the mere fact that Mr. Valenzuela had to go to notify me proves that I was not in correspondence. Since if I were, I already ought to know it, because to undertake an uprising, was sufficiently serious for them to hide from me. When they took the step of sending Mr. Valenzuela, that proves that they knew that I knew nothing, that is to say, that I maintained no correspondence with them. Another negative proof is the fact that they canot show any letter of mine. Third. They have cruelly abused my name and in the last moment they have wanted to surprise me. Why did they not communicate with me before? They would say perhaps that I was, if not contented, resigned with my residence, since I have rejected various proposals of many persons to rescue me from that place. Only in theses last months, as a consequence of certain domestic matters when I had disagreement with a Missionary priest, did I request to be permitted to go as a volunteer in Cuba. Pio Valenzuela came to notify me in order to secure my safety, because according to him, they could implicate me. Since I believed myself to be entirely innocent and I knew nothing of the how and the when of the movement, I did not take any precautions; instead, when His excellency, the Governor General wrote me announcing my going to Cuba, I immediately embarked, abandoning behind all my affairs. The fact was that I could either have gone to another place or have simply remained in Dapitan, since the letter of His Excellency was conditional. He said, “if you still persist in your idea of going to Cuba, etc.” When the movement broke out, I was on board the Castilla; and I offered myself unconditionally to His Excellency twelve or fourteen days later, I left Europe. Had my conscience been restless, I could have escaped at any port we touched, especially in Singapore, where I set foot on land, and where other passengers, who had passport to the Peninsula, stayed. My conscience was peaceful and I waited to reach Cuba, Fourth. In Dapitan, I had boats and I was permitted to make excursions along the coast and to the ranches, excursions which lasted for as long as I wanted, sometimes for a whole week. If I still had intentions of engaging in politics, I would have left event in the vintas of the Moros whom I knew in the ranches. I would not have constructed my little hospital, or bought lands, or called for my family to live with me. Fifth. Somebody said that I was the Chief. What kind of chief is this who is not consulted on the projects and only notified to effect this escape? What chief is this, who when he says, no, they say, yes?

106

Sixth. It is true that I wrote the statutes, the objectives of which were to promote commerce, the arts, etc., by means of union. This was confirmed by the witnesses who were not for me but were against me before. Seventh. The Liga did not have the chance to live, nor was it established, since after the first meeting it was not touched again and it died, because I was deported a few days later. Eight. If it was reorganized by other persons nine months later, as they now say, I did not know it. Ninth. The Liga was not a society with pernicious ends. The proof of this is the fact that they have to abandon it, founding the Katipunan, which was the one that, perhaps, responded to their objectives. Had the Liga served the rebellion in whatever little way, they would not have abandoned but only modified it, since, if I was the Chief, as some claim, on account of respect for me and the prestige of my name, they would have retained its name, Liga. The fact that they have rejected it, name and all, creating Katipunan, proves clearly that they neither counted on me nor did the Liga serve their objectives, since they need not establish another society when they already have one instituted. Tenth. Respecting my letters, I request the Court, if there are some bitter censures in them, to consider the time that I wrote them. Then, they dispossessed us of our two houses, warehouses, lands, etc. I addition, they deported all my brothers-in-law and my brother, on account of a case arising from the query of the Administration of Estates, a case in which, according to our lawyer, Mr. Linares Rivas, our side was right. Eleventh. I suffered with resignation my deportation, not for the reason they alleged, which is not exact, but for what I might have written. During these four years of my deportation, inquiries may be made regarding with conduct from the Politico-Military Commandants of the District, the townsfolk, even the very Missionary fathers, in spite of my private differences with one of them. Twelfth. All of these facts and consideration destroy the unfounded accusations of those who testified against me, with whom I have asked the Judge for confrontation with me. Can it be admitted in one single night, I could have brought all the filibusterism, in a meeting which we talked of commerce, etc., a meeting which did not go beyond that, since it died later? Had the few who were present taken seriously my words, they would not have left the Liga to die. Did those who formed part of the Liga that night create the Katipunan? I believed not. Who went to Dapitan to talk to me? Persons entirely unknown to me. Why did they not send a known person, so that I could have more confidence? Because those who knew me knew too well that I have left politics, or were very much aware of my mode of thinking regarding rebellion. They would have refused taking a useless and a little pretentious step. I hope to have demonstrated with these considerations that I have neither founded a society for revolutionary objectives, nor have I later taken part i9n others, nor have I participated in the rebellion, but that, on the contrary, I have been opposed to it. As has been demonstrated in the publication of a private conversation.

Royal Fort Santiago, December 26, 1896 Jose Rizal. He also told the Council of War that “in the Philippines there is nothing that is imputed to me…. Everything is ascribed to me for I have meant for more than anybody else. I have been more frank in saying what I though and never have I been a hypocrite or traitor. When I attacked 107

the government for deporting my brother and brothers-in-law, I did it openly. Later, when I promised not to engage in politics, I fulfilled my word, and cut off forever my political relationships. Everything is imputed to me because I have meant more, but separatist ideas are not mine; rather I am their effect. Since 1884 I have been informing the government of the march of public opinion; I asked urgently for some concessions, like representation; I revealed the abuses that were being committed; I was a safety valve. They suppressed me in 1892 through deportation and the valve was closed.” Without the valve, the Revolution broke out.

THE DEATH SENTENCE The Chairman ordered that the sala be vacated and that the Council proceed with the deliberations. Shortly after, the sentence was read: In the plaza of Manila on 26 December 1896, the Council of War presided over by Lt. Col. Don Jose Tagores Arjona, having met this day, to look into and pass sentence on the case against D. Jose Rizal Mercado y Alonzo, accused of the crimes of rebellion, sedition, and illegal association, has carefully and thoroughly examined said case; after a reading of his actuations by the Judge Advocate, and having seen the Fiscal’s accusation, heard the allegations of the defense and the declarations of the accused, hereby declares that the punishable acts consist of the crimes of illegal association and of promoting and including to execute the rebellion, the former being the necessary means to execute the latter: Jose Rizal is, therefore, found guilty of being the author of said rebellion. By virtue of its powers, the Council dictates the following sentence: D. Jose Rizal should be, and is hereby condemned to death, and in case of a pardon will bear the accessories of life imprisonment and subjection to vigilance for life, and shall pay the State an indemnity of P100,000.00, which indemnity shall be passed on to his heirs for satisfaction. The members of the Council signed the document. On the same day, the Governor General, who had requested a report of Auditor Nicolas de la Pena, concluded: “It is right to qualify Rizal as the promoter of the crime of rebellion, consummated by means of illegal association, and the death sentence is just.” In this report, Pena said: “Rizal was admired by his less educated countrymen and proceeded to propagate disloyal and treasonous thoughts among them.” Admitting that Rizal was industrious, more so than any of his countrymen, and that he spoke several languages, Pena said that his discourses contained many vulgarities, that “he is not a correct writer nor a profound thinker; his writings are marked by major defects in language and yet he has become the spokesman of subversion, the most intelligent leader of the separatist.” Apparently, these were meant to humiliate Rizal and the natives. Poloveija convened the Council where no member asked for communication of the sentence. Aside from the Council, neither one of the religious hierarchy, nor his former Jesuit tutors, nor the Dominicans recommended pardon. On 26 December, the verdict was sent to the governor general, Camilo G. de Poloveija, loyal friend of the friars, who confirmed it forthwith, and on 28 December he signed the order of execution by musketry set at seven o’clock in the morning of 30 December at the field of Bagumbayan. The haste with which the Council of War and the governor general disposed of Rizal’s life confirmed the suspicion that the fate of Rizal had been a predetermined matter. Like a premonition, fourteen years before on the night of 30 December, Rizal then in Madrid, dreamed that he had died. The entry in his diary reads: 108

1 January 1883 Two nights ago, that is, 30 December, I had frightful nightmare when I was almost died. I dreamed that imitating an actor on the stage, I felt vividly that my breath was failing and I was rapidly losing my strength. Then my vision became dim and dense darkness enveloped me – they were the pangs of death. I wanted to shout and ask for help from Antonio Paterno, feeling that I was about to die. I awoke weak and breathless.

THE LAST HOURS Whether or not Rizal retracted, he should be held in highest esteem by the Filipinos as their greatest patriot. The total accomplishment of a man in life cannot be measured merely by his conduct during his last hours. Rather, it should be evaluated on the basis of all his actuations, his virtues and defects, his loyalty to the truth and to himself, as demonstrated throughout the span of his entire life. The hours take place on 29 December with the arrival of the judge, to inform him of the sentence, and move him to the prison chapel. Having read the sentence. Rizal sat down and wrote the following letter: My dear parents and brothers: I would like to see some of you before I die, through this may cause much pain. Let the brave ones come. There are some important things that I have to tell you. Your son and brother who loves you with all his heart. Jose Rizal At 7:30, the Jesuit Fathers Miguel Saderra and Luis Viza entered his cell. From that moment on, until 7:00 of the next morning, when he was shot, Rizal did not have a moment’s rest, with discussions on matters of Christian doctrine with several persons. The Archbishop had chosen the Jesuits to persuade him to retract. Rizal received the Jesuits pleasantly, asking them about some of the old professors of his time. They replied that only fathers Vilaclara and Balaguer remained. For a while, they talked of insignificant things. Father Saderra said that they still kept the statue of the Sacred Heart which he had carved from batikuling when he was 14 years old. “It is the Sacred Heart of Jesus that has been waiting for you for 20 years and comes to greet you,” said Father Viza. Rizal had rejected the spiritual services of the chaplain of the fort, but he could not turn down the dialogue with the Jesuits. Yet the attempt to initiate his conversion was politely rejected. At nine o’ clock, the two priests withdrew, but, faithful to the precept of a drop-by- drop approach, they were replaced by Father Antonio Rosell. While Father Rosell was in the cell, Santiago Mataix, a correspondent, a correspondent of Heraldo de Madrid entered. The conversation began with Rizal’s reminiscences of his student days at the Ateneo and ended with an illusion to General Blanco whose conduct he lamented. He told Mataix that he did not go to Spain as a deportee. In those days, the news from the newspapers of the Peninsula were not impartial as regards the Rizal case, for the censors, as well as the state of war in which the archipelago was, did constrain objectivity in the reports.

109

Archbishop Nozaleda had given instructions to Father Pio Pi, superior of the Jesuit mission, that once the conversation was accomplished, Rizal should sign a document of retraction before receiving the sacraments. Two drafts of a retraction were prepared. At 10:00 in the morning two other Jesuits entered the cell, Fathers Villaclara and Balaguer. After touching on casual topics, Father Balaguer raised the subject of religion, asking Rizal his ideas on doctrinal matters. They also discussed numerous topics. When Rizal remained unyielding after a very long debate, Father Balaguer resorted to warning him of eternal damnation if he did not relinquish his ideas. In the face of this threat, Rizal protested, “No, I shall not be condemned.” The Jesuit harshly replied, “You shall go to hell, for there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” Rizal then said, “Look, Father, if in order to please you I said yes to everything and senselessly signed everything presented to me, I would be a hypocrite, and would offend God.” Father Balaguer stepped backward, saying that the Jesuits were willing to be shot in his stead, to obtain his salvation. It can be asked why, when hours later, Rizal retracted and was in the grace of God, nobody petitioned for the commutation of his sentence. The polemic continued with this man who, for half a year, had been exposed to constant tension, made hostile, deceived with fictitious assignment to Cuba, accused of acts in which he had not participated, and finally condemned to death for rebellion. But Rizal knew how to control himself. He told Father Balaguer,”I promise you that the remaining hours of my life I shall employ asking God for the grace of faith.” The discussion lasted more than two hours. Rizal did not lose his equanimity. He always measured his every word and thus his conduct was always exemplary. Having failed in his first and prolonged attempt, Father Balaguer retired to report to Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda. But Rizal was not left alone. Father March took the place of Fathers Viza and Balaguer, who informed the Most Reverend Bishop of the unyielding stand of Rizal. Subsequently, Father Villaclara joined Father March. The civil governor and Father Faura, director of the Observatory, came in at this point. Rizal asked Father Faura if he remembered their last meeting in which Faura foretold that Rizal would die on the scaffold. He told the priest, ”You have been a prophet, Father.” In one of his rare free moments, after lunch, Rizal wrote to Bluementritt the following letter: My dear brother: When you receive this letter I shall be dead. Tomorrow at 7:00 I shall be shot. But I am innocent of the crime of rebellion. I shall die with a clear conscience. Goodbye my best, my most beloved friend. Fort Santiago, 29 December 1896.

But the Jesuits did not give up. Father Balaguer returned at 3:00 and resumed the polemic, maintaining it until night came-four solid hours of controversy. He left the fort, and after picking up Father Viza at the Ateneo, proceeded to the palace to inform the Archibishop that in his opinion there was some hope. The new formula of retraction was not prepared as yet, but they promised to send it. And they did. 110

In the meantime, Rizal’s mother and sisters have arrived. It was during these moments that Rizal had to muster the greatest effort to remain calm, greater even then that which the moment of execution would require. Rizal kissed his mother’s hand – embracing was not allowed – and in a low voice told her to claim his body and have it buried. One by one the others came. He looked around his cell for something to give each one: to Angelica he gave a handkerchief, to Nasrcisa he gave his wicker chair, to Mauricio a belt and a watch with chain. To Trinidad, who understood English, he gave a little alcohol burner –saying aloud that he did not have anything better to give her. He had this burner in his cell to heat his food because his meals were always cold when brought to him. And as he handed the burner to her, he whispered in English: “There is something in it.” He had nothing more left to give to Maria, but he confided to her that he would marry Josephine. At 10:00 o’clock that night, Father Balaguer sat with Rizal and began reading the formula for the retraction, but Rizal almost immediately rejected it, saying that the style did not rhyme with his own and accepting the simplier draft prepared by Father Pio Pi. He was to write it in his own hand. At 11:30, he signed it. I declare myself a Catholic, and in this religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract wholeheartedly everything that I have, by word, writings and publication and conduct professed contrary to my capacity as a son of the Church. I believe and profess all that she teaches and submit myself to all that she directs. I reject Masonry as an enemy of the church:, and as a society prohibited by the church. The Diocesan Prelate, as superior ecclesiastical authoririty may publish this spontaneous manifestation, in order to make reparation for the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that I may be pardoned by God and by all men. Manila, 29 December 1896. Jose Rizal. He asked for confession and Father Villaclara heard it. He then slept for a few minutes. Upon waking up, he expressed his wish to marry Josephine. According to Father Balaguer, although the documents he signed were sufficient, Father Villaclara still asked him to read some acts of faith, hope and charity which he read from a prayer book and which Rizal repeated after him. At 5:30 Rizal took his breakfast. Soon after he wrote the following letter: 6:00 A.M December 1898 My beloved father: Please pardon me for all the pain with which I have repaid you for all your concern and efforts to give me my education. I did not want this; nor did I expect it. Goodbye, father, goodbye. Another letter was addressed to his sisters: I ask pardon for the suffering which I have caused you. But one day, I have to die, and it is better that I die now in the fullness of my consciousness. Give my thanks to the Lord who has granted me serenity before my death. I die resigned, and hope that with my death they will leave you in peace. It is better to die than to live with suffering. Be consoled. I suggest that you pardon one another, the little trivial things of live and try to live united in peace and harmony. Treat our parents the way you wish your children to treat you. Love them very much in memory of me. Bury me in the earth. Put a stone and a cross with my name and the dates of my birth and death. Nothing more. If you wish to put later an enclosure around my grave, do so. No anniversaries. I prefer to be buried in Paang Bundok. Have pity on poor Josephine. 111

Right after this, he wrote his last letter addressed to his brother Paciano: It has been four years that we have not seen each other nor written each other, not for lack of affection on my part nor on yours, I believe, but because, knowing each other so well, we did not need to speak to each other in order to understand one another. Now that I am going to die, it is to you that I dedicate my last lines, to tell you how much I regret leaving you alone in life, burdened with the care of the family and of our aged parents. I bear in mind what you have labored to give me my career. I believe I have tried to make good use of my time. My brother: if the fruit has been bitter, it was not my fault, but that of circumstances. I know that you have suffered much because of me. I am sorry. I assure you, brother; that I die innocent of the crime of rebellion. If my previous writings have contributed to this, I should not deny it at all, but then I thought that by my exile I was expiating for my past. Jose. In none of his past letters did he take up the dissent which had separated him from Catholic orthodoxy, in spite of its cardinal importance and for his mother and sisters, of special significance. THE FINAL POEM As regards the untitled last peom, El Imparcial of Madrid received the following telegram from its corresponds at 6:45 of the 30th and published it on the 31st: “Rizal said he wanted to confess, which he did unobtrusively. Then, as a very strange reaction, he asked for paper and pen and started to write verse.” It must have been almost midnight for, according to Balaguer’s narration, Rizal had not yet signed the retraction until the late hours of the night. According to the correspondent, Rizal wrote the verses after having confessed which he did after signing the retraction. These facts are important because the poem appears as a countersign of his old ideas, a documentary proof of his consistency of his conduct. This poem was for the people, sensitive by nature, to capture the ideas he wanted to convey. It offered a permanent and authentic testimony of his last thoughts. Rizal made sure his poem, subsequently called Ultimo Adios or Ultimo Pensamiento was not going to be lost, for it was his legacy to his country. Thus, he inserted its narrow sheets inside an alcohol lamp, telling his family to pick it up after his death.

THE EXECUTION OF 30 DECEMBER 1896 At 6:30,the squad of artillery soldiers was formed, preceded by a bugle and a drum. Rizal came out, bound elbow to elbow, flanked by Fathers Vilaclara and March and followed by his counsel, Taviel. The squad surrounded them all. They took the Paseo de Maria Cristina,now Nature named Paseo de Bonifacio. The morning was cool, the air limpid, clear and diaphanous. Nature favoured Rizal with its profound transparency showing everything in clear-cut detail. The hero walked and chatted with his companions about the scene around him. Pointing to the Ateneo, he said to Taviel. “There I spent seven years”. Even with the early hour, there was already a dense crowd on the Luneta as well as many carriages bearing Spaniards and well-dressed personages. Rizal went to the middle of the square, filled with 400 men, with a band playing.The firing squad was composed of eight Filipino soldiers, with another line of Spanish soldiers standing behind. Rizal refused to be shot from behind, saying that only traitors were thus shot, and that he was not a traitor to Spain. The captain replied that he was sorry but those were the orders and he had to follow them. At the last moment, Rizal requested that he be shot in the body and not in the head. That way, he could turn his head and body sidewise so he would fall face upwards, facing the Philippine blue sky and fail on the earth, which he never wished to see stained with blood. 112

At this point, Dr. Felipe Ruiz y Castillo, the military physician who attended to him, took his pulse and found it normal. The order to fire was given. The shots rang out and the body of the patriot, who had faced death so bravely, with such dignity and honor, fell with his face up toward the sky. Hr did not fall as a traitor. Nature had made the rectification, and Rizal, rationalist to the last minute of his life, had used his head to obtain his ends. Shout of “Viva Espaῆa!” and “Death to traitors!” were heard from the Spaniards, whenever and wherever there were traitors. But there was none in this case. Initial burial at Paco cemetery. The body of Rizal was placed in a van and with the greatest secrecy buried in the old and unused Paco cemetery. Teodora wanted to comply with the last wish of her son, that the family should take charge of his cadaver. After several objections on the part of some officials, Civil Governor Manuel Luengo acceded to the petition, but when the funeral coach left, they had already secretly taken the body away and Narcisa went to all the cemeteries of Manila in search of the body in vain. On the way back, she raw through the open gate of the Paco cemetery, some guardians civiles. Rizal’s body was interred in utmost secrecy in a grave dug in the ground on the north side of Paco cemetery. Even his stricken and unfortunate family was cruelly kept in the dark. His grave was guarded by soldiers, for Rizal’s enemies recognized that their victim was the idol of the people and they wanted to forestall any popular demonstration that might get out of control. Narcisa entered the cemetery and after much searching found a grave with freshly-turned earth. She gave the gravedigger a tip and placed a plaque with the initials of her brother in reverse, R.P.J., that is, Rizal Protacio Jose. On the afternoon of 30 December, the books, the letters and the alcohol lamp were handed over in the house of Narcisa. She quickly opened the fuel receptacle and found the last poem. Copies of the same were made and distributed among the family and some were sent to the insurrectos of Cavite. According to Father Balaguer, after parting ways with Rizal when the latter left for the execution, he went to the Ateneo to submit the document of retraction to Father Pio Pi, who on the same day left in the hands of Archbishop Nozaleda. The latter handed it to his secretary, Gonzales Feijoo, who kept it in the box of confidential documents. Impact of Rizal’s death. Rizal’s death sounded the death agony of Spanish sovereignty in the Philippines. His execution cast a gloom over the Filipinos, fanned the flame of patriotism, and swelled the ranks of the Revolutionists. Inspired by Rizal’s example and teachings, the Filipinos were now determined more than ever to fight the Spaniards to the finish. And they triumphed. They proclaimed the independence of the Philippines on 12 June 1898, established a temporary government, drafted a republican constitution, and set-up the First Republic of the Philippines. Rizal’s sacrifice was not in vain. Rizal ranks among the great builders of nations in history and as a transcendent genius, his place is beside the intellectual giants mankind has produced. DISCUSSION AIDS 1. Test this hypothesis: “Rizal’s trial was a farce.” 2. Which qualities of Rizal are worthy of emulation? How can the acquisition and development of these qualities in our people help the nation? Explain your answer. 3. Recall the values and priorities of Paciano Rizal as reflected in his initiative support, and sacrifice for his younger brother’s leadership in the Philippine nationalist movement. 4. How do the movements of Rizal’s ancestors and parents compare with the socioeconomic concerns of contemporary OFW’s?

113

114